A source who spoke to several justices present during the incident told the Journal Sentinel that the confrontation occurred after 5:30 p.m. June 13, the day before high court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

At least five justices, including Prosser and Bradley, had gathered in Bradley's office and were informally discussing the decision. The conversation grew heated, the source said, and Bradley asked Prosser to leave. Bradley was bothered by disparaging remarks Prosser had made about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said. Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said. "He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck," the source said. The source said the act "was in no way playful."

But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser. "She charged him with fists raised," the source said. Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," the source said. "He blocked her." In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley's neck.

Another source said the justices were arguing... [and] Prosser said he''d lost all confidence in [Abrahamson's] leadership. Bradley then came across the room "with fists up," the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back. Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice - the source wouldn't say who - responded, "You were not choked."

According to the Journal Sentinel, Prosser issued a statement today, saying the accusation against him "will be proven false."

Late Saturday, a separate Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report described a physical encounter in which two sources offered conflicting accounts of what happened, including one in which Justice Bradley was said to have charged at Justice Prosser.

I'm reading the Journal Sentinel's account as referring to 3 — not 2 — sources, with 2 of the 3 versions portraying Bradley as the aggressor: "the source... another source... [a]nother source...."

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

ADDED: Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign. If that happens, then the tactic of leaking the original version of the story to the press will have backfired horrifically for Democrats, as Governor Scott Walker will name the Justice to replace Bradley. If both Justices erred and must resign, that will be 2 appointments for Walker, both of whom, I would imagine, will be stronger, younger, and more conservative than Prosser, and, with Bradley gone, the liberal faction on the court will be reduced to 2, against a conservative majority of 5.

AND: Remember, the legislature has the power to impeach, so it is Bradley who is at the greater risk as the story, suppressed for 11 days, comes out. The legislature could play neutral and impeach both Prosser and Bradley, but that would give 2 appointments to Scott Walker.

ALSO: People may assume that the man is larger than the woman, but — from what I have heard — Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser. Bradley is also 7 years younger than Prosser, who is 68.

Now its clear why Bradley didnt press charges or get the police involved, or why the other justices reportedly in the office didnt do the same. Either she instigated it, or she threw a punch. Which is also why none of the "sources" wanted to go on record...they could be called as witnesses in any potential legal action.

What the hell has happened to investigative journalism in this country? And what has happened to the left in this state?

Abrahamson and Bradley come off as so obnoxious that I'm surprised anyone wants a position with either of them on that court. Can you imagine working everyday with two malicious, neurotic drama queens?

(We know this describes Abrahamson by her dissent. We know this describes Bradley by her email about Prosser calling Abrahamson a bitch.)

"Abrahamson and Bradley come off as so obnoxious that I'm surprised anyone wants a position with either of them on that court. Can you imagine working everyday with two malicious, neurotic drama queens?"-----------------

Especially after losing an election where they wanted to see the justice they hate the most (Prosser) voted out, and after having to file a losing dissent to a piece of legislation that will cripple the left in this state.

Women can be so vicious to colleagues, especially other women but including men. We had a situation in the city council where I lived for 20 years. No physical violence but constant verbal attacks and refusal to speak to her otherwise. She stuck it out for 8 years and was re-elected because she read the city check book every week and asked about individual items every council meeting. That's enough to get the rest of the council angry at you but the tactics were pretty despicable.

Wisconsin sounds a lot like that city council. I have a lot of stories about that dysfunctional city council and this story sounds familiar.

In basketball, doesn't the person moving their feet collect the "player control foul"? Sounds like Prosser had his feet set and Bradley was moving. My guess is that they all agreed to keep it quiet, and the progressives, without integrity, leaked it to the press. Prosser made a defensive gesture. Can't really do anything below the neckline, as then he might touch her breasts and then he is a sexual offender. Sounds like at least Bradley needs to resign, or be removed.

Ehe progressives believe that if she had punched him with her fist, broke his glasses and one of her nails, she could complain about him hurting her.

It appears that the attacking Bradley finished her attack with the false accusation that Prosser's blocking her fists was a choke attack upon her. But in a case like this one Bradley would have immediately called in 10 police officers and had Prosser arrested had there not been the other witnesses to what she did. Progressive mob actions sure do slow things down.

I don't believe the lady justice's story. I've worked at very high levels with extremely well educated and cultured men and women in high pressure environments for most of my career. Sadly, I've seen some incidences of violence, few but still too many. All male/female physical attacks were instigated by the women usually by a push to the chest, a slap to the face or a kick to the leg.

"All male/female physical attacks were instigated by the women usually by a push to the chest, a slap to the face or a kick to the leg."

I think we all know this is what happens. When was the last time you saw a man attack a woman, as described, in a work environment. It doesn't happen. The worst a man ever considers in such a situation is a very rude verbal assault, because he knows that's the only way to win such a confrontation. A man attacking a woman like that is one of the most powerful taboos in our culture, or most others for that matter.

Even in those crazy Korean legislative brawls, the women attack the women and the men stick to the men.

The men attack the men.The women attack the men.The women attack the women.The men attempt to stop the women from attacking both sexes.

Give the two of them boxing gloves, put them in a ring, and let them go at it until only one is left standing. It would be a pretty close match. Prosser's main advantage is that he is, well, a he, while given the ages involved the fact that Bradley is eight years younger could be significant.

"Will be proven false" strikes me as a strong statement. I realize that lawyers use the word "proof" more loosely than, say, mathematicians, but it still seems to be a claim that he has some evidence that isn't yet public, doesn't it?

All we have right now is Plosser's word and the words of several anonymous witnesses, right?

Wisconsin...making North Carolina look better every day. Seriously, whoever started that needs to go. Either or both. No excuse for that kind of behavior.

However the story unfolds, it can't get much worse for Republicans. They're already hated by Democrats. I think it's the Democrats who stand the most to lose, especially if Bradley attacked. There has to be some reasonable Democrats still clinging to the party who will let go after this sorry mess, if that's the way it turns out.

Especially after losing an election where they wanted to see the justice they hate the most (Prosser) voted out

Actually I think Michael Gablemann is the most hated Justice. He ran a very aggressive yet truthful campaign to beat "Loophole Louis" Butler and Abrahamson, Bradley, and the left in general have neither forgotten nor forgiven him. They have been harassing him with demands for recusals and accusations of ethics violations since he's been elected.

Much of the current dysfunction on the Supreme Court can be traced back to Gableman's election. Prosser is merely collateral damage in a much larger battle.

Am I to believe this story was broke by Think Progress and nobody thought it dubious??

From Crooks and Liars:

Holy cow...ThinkProgress broke the news:

The Wisconsin State Journal reports: “Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.” The incident occurred “before the court’s release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.” According to their sources “Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands.”

What you have been seeing since Walker took office in January is a bunch of liberal Dane County residents realizing that they dont run the state. And this is what they do when the GOP actually has politicians with a spine actually stand up to them....something this state hasnt had since Tommy Thompson left. And he wasnt even that far to the right.

But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

Liberals are never held accountable for this kind of thing. Never. In fact, the idiot who did this will be lionized as a hero by his/her peers and friends.

Makes more sense that he would make contact (if he did) with her if defending himself.

And given the histrionic behaviors I see in womyn journos and writers and pols, her over-reaction to his dismissiveness (if that is what he was doing) seems about right for that gender of that species of democratiosii.

Also explains his reticence and slight obfuscation. More gentleman than she is a lady.

This whole wonderful story reminds me of Mencken's assessment of the great contribution of American politicians to their citizens;

"Turn, now, to politics. Consider, for example, a campaign for the Presidency. Would it be possible to imagine anything more uproariously idiotic - a deafening, nerve-wracking battle to the death between Tweedledum and Tweedledee?"

The fighters quit before the end of the first round? The people demand a rematch!

Women are much better than men at being bitches: at nagging and nagging and ripping on their victim with many different and unusual ways to be nasty.

This is one of the reasons athletics are good for girls in school. If A. is a better basketball player than B., say winning consistently at Horse or 21 or what have you, that is objective. But girls are masters of comments like "you must like that outfit, you've worn it 3 times in the last 2 weeks" or "What magazine do you get your hair style ideas from, they are so unusual". Subjective attacks are much harder to defend against. Men don't play that way. They say "you're an ass." and are done with it. I've had students show up at school with the wrong hairdo, and they might as well have gone home. The negative feedback from their female classmates was so bad they couldn't do anything productive.

Now all you feminist idiots can wail. Go on. Deny your femininity. Isn't that what killing your unborn babies is about? That's what modern womanhood is about. Oh yes, and it is ok to hit a guy who isn't supposed to defend himself, and by God he better not defend himself.

When are we going to start jailing women who falsely accuse men of rape? They should go to jail for the same length of time the man would have gone to jail, had the rape charge been true. Hell, we have men who are victims of being raped who end up paying child support.

Y'all are talking about this incident like you're shocked or appalled, or even incredulous. As a Minnesotan, please let me remind you that Wisconsin has the highest number of on-sale bars per capita of any state.

While this factoid has nothing specifically to do with this incident, I've always felt that knowing about it as a contextual factor adds to one's understanding of, and empathy for, all things Wisconsin.

Back in junior high, I remember getting my MN license plates muddy (WI cops were hell on MN teen drivers) and driving over the border with a buddy to pick up something at his aunt's house. We met her in a bar, and got there just in time to witness this 55-year-old mother-of-eight aunt beat the living carp out of two larger men who had called her fat.

My buddy just grinned and said "don't mess with Yjortis!" That's Wisconsin in a nutshell.

Well, that and the usual progressive media, which means using "all the lies that are fit to print". No need for investigation or any real journalism - it's so much easier when you just fulfill your agenda and cheerlead.

Many versions, but no police complaint with the force of law behind it.

If there was a law broken you would think the highest law officer (co-equal to the governor) in that state would see to it that the proper enforcement would be carried out.. otherwise it starts to look like favoritism and a double standard - one for those in power and another for the rest of us.

I say this is much ado about nothing, otherwise enforceable complaints would have been filed.. Weiner deja vu.

"What is wrong in Wisconsin? A judge attacks a colleague?Completely unprofessional."

Pretty much. We don't know who attacked who or who yelled at who or what happened -- but I would bet multiple justices have been acting in an unprofessional manner.

And it just shows how dysfunctional Wisconsin has become that this ridiculous and unprofessional fight has very quickly devolved into party against party. It's not all about partisan politics.

Ridiculous. It's ridiculous that it's come to this point. The people of Wisconsin deserve much better. These justices have the public trust and they are acting like five year olds. If you can't act like an adult get off the court. Period.

If a law is broken in the presence of a supreme court justice (never mind the choking) is it not the duty of that supreme court justice to see to it, by the way the law proscribes, that the law is enforced.

If that justice does not carry out that duty isn't that obstruction of justice?

Seven Machos:[[All we have right now is Plosser's word and the words of several anonymous witnesses

No. Read the story. The witnesses largely support Prosser's report of the events.]]

I'll cop to not having read the story the first time, but I just did, and I still don't see anything attributed to anyone but Prosser, whose name I really can spell correctly if pressed, and anonymous witnesses.

I suspect you've inferred that when I said "and" I meant "against", or something like that, which I didn't mean. I acknowledge that I could have worded my comment to make such an inference less likely.

One thing I did notice from reading the piece, even though it was covered in Ann's quote, is that six justices (as I read it now - "[a]t least five" as Ann quotes it) were present. The chief does not seem to be fond of (or respectful of) Prosser; the other three who were present are probably (though less clearly) not fond of Bradley. None of them apparently thought it important that this incident be publicized. Isn't that interesting in itself?

If a law is broken in the presence of a supreme court justice (never mind the choking) is it not the duty of that supreme court justice to see to it, by the way the law proscribes, that the law is enforced.

Lem -- I say definitely no. That's clearly the duty of the executive branch, which has police powers, not the judicial. I am guessing that Wisconsin judges are deputized with police powers. That'd be weird even for Wisconsin.

"However the story unfolds, it can't get much worse for Republicans. They're already hated by Democrats."

You know, the state sounds so polarized it's almost certainly a wash.

Wisconsin Democrats will believe blah blah and Wisconsin Republicans will believe blah blah and nobody will act reasonably. And the a-political people are clearly the luckiest people in that state because they are ignoring all of this nonsense.

The political Wisconsinites have divided the world into only two groups, there are no shades of grey, it's all good and evil. And it has become acceptable for State Supreme Court justices to get into physical and verbal altercations with each other in chambers!

We all know this isn't going to end up being about what happened in Bradley's office. The discussion will quickly turn to the horrors that can result when a party in power steamrolls the party that is not in power.

Ultimately, it will become a lesson in the benefits of cooperation and negotiation across party lines and being mindful that those holding the minority view should be treated with respect.

Seriously, I think there's a competition among the three branches of WI government to see which one can come across as the most controversial or dysfunctional. I wonder what they have riding on the bet? What will the winner get?

"You cannot truly understand a different culture if you insist on ascribing your own values and goals to its people "

So why does Wisconsin have such a strange culture? Are the natives too violent to allow outsiders to make contact, or is it that the government has set it aside as a kind of endangered culture to be preserved by limiting outsiders who might infect it with reason or fire water.

I've never been there, and it seems quite exotic, do they dress anything like this?

Seven Machos: probably true, though we could at least have a few more people on the record. And if I had been Prosser, I wouldn't have used the verb "prove" if that's all I expected to come out.

Canuck: I saw a collection of polls a few weeks ago - I wish I remember where - of about 35 states' governors' approval rating by party. Walker had the highest own-party rating (~75%, IIRC) and the lowest other-party rating (< 10%).

I was disappointed that my own Andrew Cuomo wasn't listed. I'm pretty much on the right, and am pretty happy with the Democrat so far. The governor with the best other-party approval rating was the governor of Nebraska.

"Canuck: I saw a collection of polls a few weeks ago - I wish I remember where - of about 35 states' governors' approval rating by party. Walker had the highest own-party rating (~75%, IIRC) and the lowest other-party rating (< 10%)."

yeah - it has been interesting. A completely polarized state -- And they seem very closely divided in terms of numbers.

I have to admit -- with all the publicity about the Civil War anniversary, it makes me wonder how it felt to live in a border state leading up to the war.

Obviously Wisconsin is nowhere near Bloody Kansas, but it's a little disturbing to see institutions like the judiciary act like this.

Although if somebody does make that animated cartoon -- something good might come out of this!

""Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases. I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace.""

Man, they haven't even been able to get the red balloon off the ceiling of the rotunda, yet.

As to "altercation," believe what you want.

But Bradley's reduced to lying about it. Maybe, whoever helped her "author" her paper, also helped Bristol Palin claim Levi Johnson raped her. But she wasn't sure. Because she was too drunk at 15 to know the difference of sex. And, not sex. Anymore.

It started with Diamond Jim Doyle doing Enron like accounting....double counting revenue, hiding liabilities, etc. Then public employees not wanting to make even the most minor sacrifices. And then left wing wackos coming in their custumes and banging their drums and just being stinky. Then they declared war on Wisconsin businesses.

Frankly, what Scott Walker did was exactly what I would have done. It had never been tried before, so it was worth a shot.

When you have the power of the executive branch AND the house AND the senate, you gotta make some hay.

That might have been done before, but the thing I liked about what Walker did was that he set about DELETING. Getting RID of.

Scratch this rule, and then that rule while you have the chance!

And he went BIG! And I loved that he did, because some things...like public unions...really need to be GONE.

Here is maybe where we differ. I would have LOVED what Scott Walker tried to do...EVEN if he was a democrat getting rid of .. fill in the blank, and that's because I believe that the less laws and rules our government leaders make, the better off we are.

Doesn't make much difference to me what political party is ridding us of all the idiotic rules they sit around and concoct with the help of their special interest pals, and Walker!!! Bless his heart! The man was into DELETING!

But here's the "rub".

Everyone is SO worked up, that even the friggin' court is acting like a bunch of thugs, and personally? That just might tell me that Chris Christie had a better path.

I'm amused by this, as well. Between this whole Wisconsin fiasco, where the Reds (from the "blue" states) drew a line in the sand (water), and the gunwalker mission, to prepare the battlespace for 2nd ammendment violations, it really makes me wonder what we are not seeing. The American way is about to be a proven, because certain folks won't stop pushing.

What I'm wondering is this: Who thinks that, however this Prosser-Bradley/Bradley-Prosser thing is resolved, the court will be able to move into the immediate future with any semblance of authority intact?

It's important to determine who does, in fact, think that's possible: those who do are the first who ought be swept out of office. Public offices are best not held by ostriches (of any type and all types0.

"Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

Justice Walsh Bradley

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold,"

"Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin."

"Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases."

"I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."

This is probably nothing more than a comical physical confrontation between a couple of soft desk jockeys who have never been in a fist fight in their lives. I little pushing and shoving. Nothing to see here. The problem is that it's being reported by a bunch of wimps who have never SEEN a real fist fight. The leakers are the only people who have done anything wrong.

Step 1. go to policeStep 2. they ask the victim to make a sworn statement as to the incident. (at this point the stake go way up)Step 3. They go to every other person there who was a witness and get sworn statements. How can a Judge refuse?Step 4. They confront the attacker or go back and charge the alledged victim with a false report. Will it be the Man or the woman?

The Police hate false reports. This will peter out because she will never file a police report.

A source who spoke to several justices present during the incident told the Journal Sentinel that the confrontation occurred after 5:30 p.m. June 13, the day before the high court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

snip..

Another source said the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn't know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.

In all the she said, he said... we're not talking about why they were meeting at 1730 on a Monday night, June 13. The left had been playing "rope-a-dope" trying to stretch out the restraining order, etc to allow the unions to get new fat contracts in place. The majority say they can have their opinion written by Tuesday so that the lower court can be overturned and the restraining order declared void. Abrahamson says it will take weeks, not 24 hours....Sounds like the majority made it clear they were going public on Tuesday.

That's the context of the ongoing set of delaying and obfuscating tactics of the progressives.-when you have the law, argue the law,- when the law is against you, but the facts look good, argue the facts- when you have neither the law or the facts, talk about chokeholds

When the Civil War ended in 1865, Slough was appointed Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court by President Andrew Johnson. He became so unpopular in this post that many sought for his removal. In 1867 William Logan Rynerson, a member of the Legislative Council of the territory of New Mexico, participated in a campaign to remove the judge, leading Slough to publicly slander Rynerson. The next day, Rynerson drew a gun on the judge in Santa Fe. Slough exclaimed, "Shoot and be damned!" and Rynerson fired. Mortally wounded, Slough drew a derringer and let it fall to the floor. Rynerson was found not guilty (by reason of self defense) by a court thought by many to be corrupt.

Captain (later Colonel) Rynerson went on to a long career in New Mexico politics, and was the District Attorney in Las Cruces who prosecuted Billy the Kid while being himself associated with the Murphy-Dolan faction.

now thet old crook gablemen haz cum out on his bff prossers side in thar dispute bradely has releesed a saement thusly:

"Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley issued a statement late Saturday saying that fellow Justice David Prosser choked her and disputing claims that she attacked him first.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," she said. "Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin.

"Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases," she said.

"I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."

Professor, a "source" gave out the information. The "source" apparently got the information from one of the five, (5), justices that were present. Now in my world, I would know that if an attack happened in the presence of five, (5), justices that one or more of them might have come forward had there been an actual "attack." Perhaps they should all go and Walker should replace them all. Win. Win.

And what people leave out is that Prosser has already admitted to referring to the Chief Justice as a "bitch."

He's such a kindly, gentle 68 year man who is so very dignified, right Ann? Give me a break. No wait....

So you think it follows that he'd choke someone just out of the blue? Maybe you hang with priests all day or something, but I don't believe I know a single person - male or female - who hasn't called some woman, somewhere, a bitch.

I think you're going to need more than that to prove he's some kind of woman-hating psychopath.

"The Drill SGT said... This ex-sergeant (and ex-private and ex-officer :) wants to permanently disassociate himself from "sarge" the troll "

listen up yar shitstained spincter yar wuz never and nevr could bee associatd with the sarge in thar 1st place but come on over an let sarge bend yar over an drive yar all the way home yar cumguzzlin pogie shitbird

yea, because a majority of people certainly did NOT replace liberal Democrats with Republicans in a regular election with their legal votes because they didn't like what the Democrats in charge were doing.

They TOOK IT OVER,MAN! By unspoken, nefarious means, so leftwing drama queens like garage can pretend they are nobly opposing evil, rather than admit to not doing what the voters actually want out of their government was the reason they were voted out of power.

Garage and his leftwing brethren are so convinced of the moral superiority of their failed ideology that they can hardly conceive of anyone who would dare to disagree with their conclusions. Therefore and ergo, opposition to their superior ideas is illegitimate. It really is a USSR style mindset.

SGT Ted said..."I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."

translation: No way in hell am I going to the Police and make a sworn statement. It was me and Abrahamson in the room along with those four wingnuts... I'm going to let this play out in the left wing press :)